The Bush Legacy

I wrote on January 20, 2009:

= = =
It is impossible to write a definitive judgment on the legacy of President George W. Bush at this time, although there have been many evaluations and retrospectives in the last several months.

Left-leaning folks, especially those who have had Bush Derangement Syndrome from the moment the first chad dangled, will try to blame him as much as possible while denying him as much credit as they can, and some Republicans will defend Bush's every move, even if they would have pitched a fit if it had been done by a Democrat.

We should be vigilant against those who would try to write him into history as the worst President ever. They will try to do so for political expediency, since he is the most recent Republican to serve in that office, and the only President besides Obama that most newer voters will remember with any understanding.

We should also be careful not to let Bush's decisions or tolerations that were decidedly expansive of government be portrayed as proof that limiting government doesn't work.

New Page Added on Comment Policy

Read all about it. It is short.

Yes, Neutering Marriage Affects All

The Aquila Report has something written by John Barber, "Ten Reasons Why SSM Affects Your Marriage".

4. Same-sex marriage will absorb your marriage into a new view of reality
The basic argument for same-sex marriage states that there is no fundamental difference between the rights of gays/lesbians and heterosexuals to marry. Supporting the legal claim of “gender equality” is a view of human sexuality that erodes natural, gender-specific, differences between men and woman. The result is a “unisexual” view of personhood which, rather than affirm diversity, blurs it beyond recognition. The unisexual view of personhood is part of global move toward a hermaphroditic understanding of reality... Ironically, diversity, the very thing secularism claims to champion, is what it destroys. Unity (two people becoming one) and diversity (a husband and a wife) are held in perfect balance in traditional marriage.

This is something many people refuse to admit when discussing this with those who oppose the neutering of marriage. They present it as all about a particular couple they know, if not themselves. However, laws apply to all, and what our laws says inevitably sends a message about our values and priorities. All laws express someone's morality. If the law says that brideless and groomless coupling is an equal action to marriage, then marriage can't, as an institution, be about the needs of children and the gender inclusion or sex integration can't be valuable, because it is indistinguishable from gender exclusion or sex segregation. (You might think this will clear the way again for male-only clubs to exist, but a judge who thinks along the lines of a marriage neutering advocate would rule that a woman is a male if she says she is, and thus must be admitted, or that since there is no difference between men and women, women can't be excluded.)

7.  Same-sex marriage defeats the purpose of the state’s interest in benefiting your marriage
A reason the federal government bestows numerous benefits on families with children, including child tax credits, is due to their social significance. The intent and design of heterosexual marriage is to provide the normal and stable conditions for the birth and upbringing of children. Homosexual marriage is not aimed at providing such conditions. Its chief purpose is the personal gratification of two individuals whose relationship is inherently barren. A major agenda item of gay activists is to secure a range of federal, state, and local benefits, hitherto enjoyed by traditional marriages. Should that goal be met fully, courts would only serve to empty traditional marriage of its significant social meaning, other than the respect of personal preferences. Should that ensue, would the federal government (especially one burdened economically) still see the necessity to continue to extend tax breaks to married heterosexual couples with children? Child tax credits could be offered to gay/lesbian couples who adopt. But the government could also choose to “level the playing field” by maintaining deductions for dependents whether they are children or spouses.

The ultimate goal of Leftists is to remove marriage from the law. That's why "get the government out of marriage" is a false compromise. Some Leftists, including homosexual Leftists, admit their goal is to remove marriage from the law. The see unfairness in married people and/or adults with minor children getting any advantage, reward, or assistance over unmarried people or childless adults. Many libertarians agree. Many conservatives, however, note that in order to conserve society, we need new citizens, preferably raised in stable, loving homes that provide them a role model and parents of each of the two sexes with whom they will have to interact with as adults.

9.  The redistribution of marriage rights modifies your marriage as a natural entity afforded legal recognition
Marriage is a naturally occurring relationship. A purpose of U.S. law is to create a flourishing context for the family to govern itself. Put differently, the state does not create marriage but is to create complimentary environments in which martial life is legally recognized and protected. Redefining marriage by legal fiat changes this point of reference. It shifts the legal posture of the state from recognizing a preexisting institution to creating the institution after its own image and likeness. The state would become the originator of your marriage. Case in point, the Hawaii Supreme Court called marriage “a state conferred legal partnership status.” Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 58 (Haw. 1993).

Do our rights come from Nature's God or do they come from the bench?

You can also see what we wrote about harms at The Opine Editorials.

Defending Marriage From Neutering is Not Hateful

Discussions with marriage neutering advocates continued on Twitter. Here's where I wrote about this before. This all started because I tweeted a link to a column by Matt Barber pointing out that the State of Washington was attacking a florist because she didn't want to be associated with a groomless "wedding".

Paul continued with bumper sticker slogans, tautologies, name-calling and displays a lack of reading comprehension. He still hasn't explained why we should neuter marriage.

Pauls_View ‏@pauls_view

@PlayfulWalrus There is no reason allowing gays to marry will have ANY effect on straight marriage.

Neutering marriage dilutes it. Counterfeiting devalues the authentic. Marriage laws are part of public policy and apply to all. Neutering marriage changes the very meaning of marriage, and sends a clear message that, from a societal perspective, marriage is about the whims of two adults, not what is of most concern to society, and not about orgnizating and perpetuating society. Why does the the state care if two people love each other, or have the hots for each other?

Public policy about marriage, parenting, and family has an effect on all of us. State marriage licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state. They are not a private matter. Same-sex couples are free to have ceremonies, share names, share homes, share beds, share a life, etc. But they should not be able to force the rest of us to neuter marriage licensing.

Gays are couples now without = rights

Individuals have rights. On what basis do we treat any TWO people equally? If they DO the same thing. Sex-segregated relationships are not equal to bride+groom relationships, and so there is no obligation to treat them equally.

Affirming Marriage Is Not Hateful

In July of 2008, the Pink Lady (known to some as the Los Angeles Times, tried to convince readers that Proposition 8 was doomed at the ballot box. Of course, it went on to be approved in November that year, adding the California Marriage Amendment to the state constitution.

The Los Angeles Times tried to convince us that since what they see as the "in-crowd" supports marriage neutering and that those of us who honor the bride+groom construct should give up. Staff writers Jessica Garrison and Dan Morain reported. [NOTE: They now have a paywall, so free clicks are limited.]

A bare majority of California voters would continue to allow gay marriage, according to a new poll released Friday.

Yet again, that was extremely sloppy language used. Proposition 8 RESTORED bride-groom marriage licensing to the State of California. "Gay marriage" was not banned (and neither were round squares). Anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, could "marry" someone of the same sex in ceremonies, form legal partnerships, commit to each other, live with each other, etc. Passing Proposition 8 did not send the Gestapo (or, as one dispicable ad depicted, Mormon missionairies) into Metropolitan churches and homes and banquet halls to break up "gay marriages".

The Right to Vote

In early 2009, there was an entry on the Los Angeles Times blog [NOTE: The Pink Lady now has a paywall, that last I checked, kicked in after so many hits from you per month] about the LDS church contributions supporting the California Marriage Amendment. Of course, the entry prompted a bunch of the usual comments.  I'm picking out one to analyze here.
"scotch9" wrote on January 31, 2009 at 03:22 PM:

It would seem that the right wing conseravtive movement wants America to adopt a Middle easrten Style Government where religion dictates the thoughts and actions of people.

Not all right wing conservatives are traditionally religious. But I think he means the "religious right", and no, major personalities in the religious right do NOT want a theocracy. Actually, they (the Christian ones, anyway) await a benevolent dictatorship with the return of Christ, but until then they champion the Constitution.

For 233 years we have fought aganst this all around the world.

No, we haven't. We have fought tyranny in various ways, and that the California Supreme Court did by ordering the neutering of marriage licenses was tyrannical.

I know some are uncomfortable with same sex relationships. So what.

That's not the issue here (although you think state-issued marriage licenses mean affirmation). The issue here is who gets to decide state licensing requirements? A handful of people, or the voting citizenry?
The writer then goes on to compare present-day conservatives with Tories from the time of the American Revolution, defenders of American slavery, opponents of women's suffrage, segregationists, and Jim Crow proponents, before going on to this gem:

We were even attacked on Septemeber 11, 2001 by right wing conservative religious types screaming glory to the god they say is suprior to the God these American Chistains rage for, and they say,makes them superior to gay persons. These poeple seek to devide, inspire violence, murder, hate and create evil.

The hijackers were all male, too, so I guess all men are just like them.

They know all about all, just ask them.

Well if you aren't confident that you know anything, then why should anyone else listen to your opinion?

It is entirely possible that "conservatives" have been wrong on many things, but are right about this thing.

This is what people like me want: Limited, constitutional government. I don't want to come into your home using the force of law and tell you how to live. But that also means you can't come to me and take something from me without my approval. So if you want to live with someone of the same sex, exchange vows and jewelry and names with them, have a party, go on vacation together, and all of that, you are free to do so.  But when you march on down to a building that is paid for by the taxpayers, and ask a public servant to issue you a state marriage license on behalf of the people of California, then the people of California, including me, have a right to say "no" if you don't meet the requirements, as long as the requirements are clear and applied equally. And that's exactly what we do. Men and women can get marriage licenses, regardless of sexual orientation. Women are not excluded. Homosexuals are not excluded.

I also have the right to practice my religion and vote as I choose.

California Domestic Partnership Law Proves Our Point

I noticed back in November 2008 that still hasn't been addressed in the discussion over then neutering of marriage, especially as it relates to California's Marriage Amendment. As I've written numerous times, California already treats domestic partners as spouses.
But notice that such domestic partnerships are only available to same-sex couples, and not offered to both-sexes couples unless one of the individuals is over a certain age.
Where have all these "equality" activists been when it comes to such "inequality"?  They keep telling us that domestic partnerships are not the same as marriage, that the word marriage carries with it certain things – which might precisely be why a both-sexes couple might prefer to get a domestic partnership instead of a licensed marriage.
That domestic partnership law proves that state policy includes treating different kinds of relationships differently. I don’t see how the California Supreme Court could order the neutering of marriage licensing without also ordering that domestic partnerships be offered to both-sexes couples whose members are of any adult age. Perhaps all domestic partnerships should be immediately dissolved?
Unless you have been calling for domestic partnerships to be opened to both-sexes couples, you have less credibility if you are now insisting on marriage neutering under the guise of "equality"
At the time I first wrote about this, I said I actually like the domestic partnership law, by the way, and do not want to see domestic partnerships dissolved. However, seeing has how they are used as Trojan Horses to neuter marriage licensing by court, I have since told people in other states they should oppose them. The very people who push for domestic partnership laws turn right around after they pass and call them insults.

Defending Your Support of Marriage

Are you being criticized for your defense of marriage, and state licenses requiring both a bride and a groom, rather than excluding women or excluding men? Maybe friends, family, bosses, customers, coworkers, social networking contacts, bloggers, and commenters have lashed out and you or pressured you?  Maybe you have received angry calls from strangers that you perceived as threatening bodily harm to you, but in retrospect, you realize that the person calling you willingly subjects himself to the described treatment for jollies? Have you been called a hater or a bigot?
Well, I think I have a solution.
Feel free to copy and paste this defense I am providing below.  You don’t even have to give me credit.  Just be sure to modify it so your critic's name appears in the salutation. Modify as necessary to be relevant to your circumstances. I refer to California Proposition 8, for example.

Shall We Vote on Your Marriage Now?

That, or some variation of that, was used by some protestors against California's marriage amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, and has been used ever since in the USA and around the world regarding disputes about neutering marriage. It is used by demonstrators in person and online and in print.
They are trying to stir sympathy, asking you to place yourself in their shoes. But what is the logical argument, if any, being made? It seems to be "You voted against licensing my relationship as marriage, and that hurts because I want my relationship to be licensed as marriage."
I'm sure I’ll be corrected if I am wrong.
We've all wanted something, at sometime in our lives, that was wrong, or that wasn't ours to have, or wasn't even possible. That we want something doesn't mean we have a right to have it. It still isn't a right even if a bunch of us want it. It still isn't a right even if a court one day says it is. Wanting something doesn't mean it is right that you get it, or that any means used to get it are right.
Marriage has existed for all of human history. Our state, our current governments, did not create it. It recognizes it and has chosen to license it. There is a reason that the state is involved in marriage licensing, and it isn't because anyone has a right to a marriage license. It isn't so that the state can reward two people for finding love, mutual attraction, or good times together. There is a reason marriage throughout history has united the sexes, and that state licensing of marriage has reflected that.
And those reasons have nothing to do with stopping anyone from engaging in same-sex partnering or physical activity, or punishing people for having same-sex attractions, or trying to make such people feel bad. It does not prevent same-sex couples from living together, committing to each other, forming legal relationships, or considering themselves married or being treated by others as married.
As I've said many times, there is no right to a state-issued license against the demonstrated will of the state voters. True rights do not obligate others without their consent, unless a crime has been committed. When you ask someone (the people of California, for example) for something (a marriage license), they have the right to say "no".  We have the freedom of speech. It is even enumerated in the Constitution. But I do not have a right to force you to read this blog or listen to what I have to say – because that would obligate you without your consent.
Marriage defenders are not the people who took this matter to the courts. In doing so, same-sex partners were already subjecting their marriages to a vote – a vote by the judges. Since our government rules through the consent of the governed, marriage licensing stipulations fall under our authority. Even with equal access/protection and nondiscrimination laws, there is no compelling reason for a court to force neutered marriage licensing, because there is equal access to traditional marriage licenses for both men and women of any sexual orientation. That someone does not want to get that license under current terms does not compel a change. That I prefer to grow and eat vegetables instead of fish does not mean that something is wrong with fishing licenses, even if people will mount large catches on their wall and receive praise, while nobody cares as much that I grow tasty vegetables.
Now given that marriage licensing is up to the people of the state, what about that original question?  What if people voted to change marriage licensing so that only same-sex couples could get them?  I wouldn't be happy about it, but it wouldn't stop me from being married to my wife. I would still be happy with her, I would still live my life married to her, whether or not the state licensed it. That is because my marriage is based on biological fact and it is part of a historical tradition and is about our commitment to each other before God.
There is nothing stopping anyone from circulating a petition to change marriage licensing in such a way. So far, there has been ONE state where someone neutered marriage licensing by circulating a petition to get in on on the ballot, getting it on the ballot, and the voters approving it. So if they get enough signatures, it will get on the ballot. If the ballot measure gets enough votes, it will pass.  So if you want to vote on my marriage, I say... go for it. My happiness does not depend on what you think of my marriage.

When Marriage Neutering Proponents Say Love is Love

"Love is love."  That is one of those bumber-sticker tautologies used in an emotional appeal by marriage neutering advocates.

Well, of course X = X.  But what is the logical argument, if any, implied?  It seems to be "The love I have for my same-sex partner is no different than the love you have for your opposite-sex partner, therefore, our relationship should be licensed by the state as marriage just as yours can be."

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong.

I first heard "Love is love" in response to California Proposition 8, which was adopted by the voters and became the California Marriage Amendment, part of the state constitution.

First of all, California law deals with "love" exactly twice[1].  In neither case is marriage or domestic partnerships addressed.  There is no legal requirement that spouses or domestic partners actually love each other.  You can get a marriage license or a domestic partnership with someone you loathe.  I don’t advise it, but it is legally possible.

Biblical promises that Jesus loves us aside, none of us can really be sure whether or not one person loves another person.  In some cases, we can make a good guess based on our experiences with how they treat each other.  The people at the county office who issue marriage licenses are unlikely to be able to objectively prove whether or not you love the person with whom you are getting the marriage license.  Fortunately, they don't ask.

It also strikes me that if you're going to use "love is love" as an argument to change the legal definition of marriage, you should also have a legal definition of love in state law, as "love" means different things to different people.  We don't have a definition of love in state law.  But that is okay, because we don't base public policy on whether or not any two adults love each other.

If we were to accept the implied argument, wouldn't that mean that any relationship where love is claimed should be licensed as marriage if requested?  After all, if love is love, then that means that platonic friends who love each other should be able to be married to one another as far as state licensing, no matter how many there are.  Close family members (even without incest), or people carrying on an extramarital affair, or people who regularly engage in group sex with each other - all should be able to claim state marriage licenses for their relationships, no?

Also, how does anyone know for sure if the love in one relationship (say, bride+groom) is equivalent to another (say, same-sex partners), especially if they've only ever engaged in one kind?

"Love is love" can't be the basis for state marriage licensing if we are going to keep any order.  Fortunately, licensing is based on objective facts that are a matter of public record: one adult (or emancipated) female and one adult (or emancipated male), neither one currently in a licensed marriage, who are not closely related.  There's no requirement or restriction involving love or sexual orientation.

Ultimately, since state marriage licensing is not about love, the argument is irrelevant.

[1] California Government Code section 421.7.
"I Love You, California," a song published in 1913 with lyrics by F.B. Silverwood and music by A.F. Frankenstein, is an official state song.


Insurance Code:
 Section 10110.  Every person has an insurable interest in the life and health of:
   (a) Himself.
   (b) Any person on whom he depends wholly or in part for education or support.
   (c) Any person under a legal obligation to him for the payment of money or respecting property or services, of which death or illness might delay or prevent the performance.
   (d) Any person upon whose life any estate or interest vested in him depends.

10110.1.  (a) An insurable interest, with reference to life and disability insurance, is an interest based upon a reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage through the continued life, health, or bodily safety of another person and consequent loss by reason of that person's death or disability or a substantial interest engendered by love and affection in the case of individuals closely related by blood or law.
   (b) An individual has an unlimited insurable interest in his or her own life, health, and bodily safety and may lawfully take out a policy of insurance on his or her own life, health, or bodily safety and have the policy made payable to whomsoever he or she pleases, regardless of whether the beneficiary designated has an insurableinterest.
   (c) Except as provided in Section 10110.4, an employer has an insurable interest, as referred to in subdivision (a), in the life or physical or mental ability of any of its directors, officers, or employees or the directors, officers, or employees of any of its subsidiaries or any other person whose death or physical or mental disability might cause financial loss to the employer; or, pursuant to any contractual arrangement with any shareholder concerning the reacquisition of shares owned by the shareholder at the time of his or her death or disability, on the life or physical or mental ability of that shareholder for the purpose of carrying out the contractual arrangement; or, pursuant to any contract obligating the employer as part of compensation arrangements or pursuant to a contract obligating the employer as guarantor or surety, on the life of the principal obligor.  The trustee of an employer or trustee of a pension, welfare benefit plan, or trust established by an employer providing life, health, disability, retirement, or similar benefits to employees and retired employees of the employer or its affiliates and acting in a fiduciary capacity with respect to those employees, retired employees, or their dependents or beneficiaries has an insurable interest in the lives of employees and retired employees for whom those benefits are to be provided.  The employer shall obtain the written consent of the individual being insured.
   (d) An insurable interest shall be required to exist at the time the contract of life or disability insurance becomes effective, but need not exist at the time the loss occurs.
   (e) Any contract of life or disability insurance procured or caused to be procured upon another individual is void unless the person applying for the insurance has an insurable interest in the individual insured at the time of the application.
   (f) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a), (d), and (e), a charitable organization that meets the requirements of Section 214 or 23701d of the Revenue and Taxation Code may effectuate life or disability insurance on an insured who consents to the issuance of that insurance.
   (g) This section shall not be interpreted to define all instances in which an insurable interest exists.

Name Calling and Bible Bashing

Paul has elected to contiue the discussion.

Pauls_View  @pauls_view 
@PlayfulWalrus I have to take up bloggoing. It's unrealistic to reply to your pages of rhetoric with 140 chars...and yes it is rhetoric. 

 

Let's not forget, Paul chose to respond to my tweeting of a link to Matt Barber's column. I prefer blogging because emotion-based bumper sticker slogans may sound nice, but the truth usually requires more substance.

Calling what I write "rhetoric" is not disagreeing with what I wrote or showing where I was in error.

@PlayfulWalrus Your phrase of "neutering marriage" spotlights your bias.

"Neutering marriage" is a more accurate description for what Paul wants than "marriage equality". Brideless or groomless pairings are inherently unequal to marriage, regardless of what state law calls them. Also, unless Paul wants all restrictions on licensing adult relationships lifted, Paul does not support equality the what he claims to. By removing the bride+groom requirement from state licensing, the licenses are being neutered.

When all the gays in the world marry my marriage will be awesome!
I am sorry your marriage and your children's marriages are not capable of handling civil marriage between gays. Mine can!!

I never said my marriage couldn't handle things. What I said was that counterfeiting is harmful. My guess is that Paul would not be happy if Fred Phelps set up a school club and called it a Gay-Straight Alliance. Paul wants to dilute the meaning of the word "marriage". What he wants devalues marriage in general. State licensing is a public matter. This is a public policy matter. We all have to live in the same society, government by the same laws.

@PlayfulWalrus I have a feeling you won't dedicate an hour to an opposing view but an open minded person would: youtube.com/watch?v=4OiDrb…

  I was already aware of that video. People can do all sorts of verbal gymanistics and selective reading to "explain away" every verse of an English language Bible that says anything negative about homosexual behavior. However, that doesn't change the fact that the plain, repetitive teaching of the Bible, literally from the first book to the last, is that marriage unites a bride and a groom, and that sex is for marriage, regardless of where and when someone is living, regardless of whether they are Jew of Gentile.

Regardless of the Bible, however, resisting the neutering of marriage is about scientific, biological, and sociological facts.

See Things Our Way, Or Else

The conversation I detailed yesterday has continued.

Marriage neutering advocates say that marriage has always been changing, and make claims about past laws regarding marriage that they, and often others, are glad aren’t in place anymore. This, however, does not demonstrate that further change is needed. Also, throughout all of the changes in marriage laws in the past, marriage has always been about uniting the sexes, almost always about uniting one man with one woman. Even in polygynous marriages (Islam, plural marriage of smaller Mormon denominations) and polyandrous marriages (practiced in some places in the East), the people of the same sex are not married to each other, they are each married individually to one person of the opposite sex. The women of "Sister Wives" are not married to each other; each one is seperately married to Kody Brown.

Even in societies where homosexual behavior was publicly accepted, even expected and celebrated, marriage involved uniting the two sexes. That marriage neutering advocates can cite isolated incidents where rogues united a few same-sex couples in a ceremony no more indicates that a same-sex coupling has historically been recognized as marriage than the incidents of women "marrying" themselves demonstrates that marriage only requires one person, or someone "marrying" the Eiffel Tower means that human-building unions have been recognized as "marriage".

Pauls_View  @pauls_view 
@PlayfulWalrus Here is the history of marriage: historyofmarriage.org It has changed many times. You want no more progress. Closes minded.

Paul assumes neutering state marriage licensing is progress, but I don’t agree. He calls me closed minded, but his mind appears to be closed to the idea that uniting the sexes has a distinct value.
In response to what I posted yesterday:

Opposing Fascism Draws Attacks on the Bible

I tweeted a link to a column by Matt Barber detailing how fascists were going after people for not supporting the neutering of marriage, and I got a response about how the column author was hateful, not about how the column was in error. So I wrote back:

@pauls_view Affirming the Biblical teachings that marriage is bride+groom & sex is for marriage, & resisting fascism is not hateful.

This brought three tweets back from Pauls_View @pauls_view:

@PlayfulWalrus The bible says this about marriage. Can't pick and choose. See picture and versus pic.twitter.com/SkZ4XBwQon

I could write out a long explanation myself, but Alan Shlemon did a great job with these videos responding to stuff like this:

Funding Government: Of Fees and Taxes

How do governments get revenue with which to operate? No, contrary to what some would have you believe, it doesn’t magically appear out of nothing. There are some basic ways governments are funded:

Conquest, thereby gaining resources previously outside of that government's domain

Owning businesses, thereby selling goods and services.

Collecting rent

Selling land or mining rights, etc.

Gifts

Customs duties and tariffs on imported or exported goods

Taxes

Fees

Assessments

Fines and forfeitures


Some sources would list loans, bonds, tributes, and subventions, but each of these eventually necessitate one of the other funding means previously listed.

Let’s take a closer look at these funding methods.

Despite what the America-bashers say, we haven’t engaged in conquest in a long time. Very few people would advocate conquest in the historic sense. I do think a valid argument could be made for seizing the assets of nongovernmental terrorist groups and using those to fund our anti-terrorism efforts and to compensate American victims of terrorism.

The government should own very few, if any businesses. Free markets can take care of the needs there.

Collecting rent, for any land the government owns, is certainly valid. That rent should go first and foremost to the maintenance of that property.

Selling land and mineral rights. This could be a good idea. The government needs a certain amount of land for essential Constitutional functions, but otherwise should consider getting out of being a landowner.

People sometimes give gifts to local government, such as donating their land to be a municipal park upon their death. Gifts, such as statues, may come from other places. Gifts to governments should be under certain narrow circumstances to avoid the appearance of undue influence.

The "buy American" crowd loves the idea of duties and tariffs on imports.  However, these keep prices high for American consumers and reduce the incentive to Americans to provide goods and services that will be desired around the world.

Now we’re getting to the nitty-gritty.

Taxes are forced and supposedly for a common benefit. We have income taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes, luxury taxes, sin taxes, gas taxes, so on and so forth. Although I highly doubt it will ever happen, most of these should be done away with. A sales tax may work, provided the government doesn’t lose too much through underground markets. Sales taxes will still mean "the rich" will be likely to pay most of the tax burden, because they tend to buy more expensive items. We should not allow taxes to be called “fees” for the sake of political comfort.

Fees are for a special benefit, collected upon a transaction. For example, not everyone owns a motorized vehicle. Some people own many. If we’re going to have government regulation of motorized vehicles and government programs and projects centering on them, it makes sense to charge fees for registering those vehicles in a way that covers enough of the costs so that someone who does not own such a vehicle does not have to pay a tax to support them. Retailers pay fees in order to have their scales and registers certified as accurate. Fees should not be used like income taxes. They should fund a specific, related purpose.

Assessments are charged on a property, usually for an extraordinary expense, such as public works or utility infrastructure construction. Assessments make more sense than most taxes, though in some cases, the same results can be achieved through private property and private infrastructure. For example, property owners in a certain area may pay an assessment to build and maintain a nearby bridge.

Provided they do not violate property rights, fines and forfeitures are another excellent way to fund government functions, and they do so widely now. When someone violates laws, necessitating a response from government, it would be ideal if they could pay for the costs of enforcement, investigation, conviction, and maybe even incarceration. If someone can make money by violating the law and a fine will only amount to a small percentage of their illicit gain, that is hardly a deterrent. But it makes sense to "tax" crime with fines and forfeitures.

So, taxes are not fees, fees are not taxes, and we should not try to hide taxes as fees nor treat fees like taxes. There are many ways for the government to fund its necessary functions without raising or even having income taxes or estate taxes.

Hank Hanegraaff on Neutering Marriage and Hit & Run Bible Mockers

Hank Hanegraaff, culture warrior, is a longtime husband and father of 12 children. If understand correctly, nine of those children are biological (one of which miscarried) and three are adopted. So, he has a lot of perspective on marriage, family, and parenting. He has a new blog that appears to be intentionally distinct from the ministry he leads. Two recent entries are relevant to the issue of neutering marriage.

The first is "What Are the Inherent Liabilities of [Neutering] Marriage?"

Furthermore, we should underscore the biological reality of sexual reproduction. Every organ in the human body is self-sufficient to perform its intended function except for one. Natural reproduction always, always, always requires a coupling of male and female. As Dr. Jay Richards has well written in the Christian Research Journal, “Marriage protects, reflects, and reinforces this powerful complementary, reproductive part of our natures.” As such, marriage “is a comprehensive union of body, mind, emotion, and soul, a proper end of which is children.”

One need not even cite reproduction. It is a biological fact that men and women are different. All one must do is note that men and women are different and thus the uniting of both sexes is different from other kinds of associations. States are allowed to treat different kinds of associations differently. This is not a religious argument, it is an argument based on basic biological reality that most people understand and live by, with perhaps the exception of a very, very few people, most of whom required many years of brainwashing to arrive at their stated opinion. and unless they are neuterally bisexual, they are hypocrites.

In sum, marriage cannot be reduced to politically correct rhetoric or political whims. It is a matter of natural law. Says Richards, “Rights come from our nature, and our nature comes from God. If you deny that, then you deny the basis of all our other rights.” In the end, redefining marriage strikes a mortal blow to the foundation of a free society.

This is no small matter. because of the flouting of so much other "traditional morality" in having sex and raising children out of wedlock, shacking up, adultery, what I would call elective divorces, and elective abortions, too many people think it won't feel any different if marriage is neutered, and so there is no harm in it. However, the arguments driving the neutering of marriage undermine the very foundation of our rights, making them nothing more than things doled out by whomever is currently in office. In gaining the "right" to get a state license without a bride or without a groom (which is not just limited to homosexual people - anyone can access this "right" just as homosexual individuals can access bride+groom licenses), all rights are being weakend.

Hanegraaff's entry offers:

See also Jay W. Richards, “To Defend Marriage, We Should Learn a Lesson from Apologetics,” Christian Research Journal, vol. 35, no. 4, 2012.

Bible Answer Man interview with Jay W. Richards, “What is marriage?”
http://www.equip.org/audio/hank-hanegraaff-with-special-guest-jay-w-richards/

The second entry is "Can Christians Only 'Thump the Bible' On the Issue of [Neutering] Marriage Legislation?"

When the Bible is being denigrated, mocked, disdained, as sarcasm drip from the lips of political pundits and public personalities, we must take a stand, because the lives of multiplied millions literally hang in the balance.

He takes Bill O’Reilly and Lawrence O'Donnell to task.

In reality, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell is himself a “thumper;” a “thumper” who has taken the Bible out of context and used it as a pretext for his own idiosyncratic brand of fundamentalism. To anachronistically rip a narrative out of its Ancient Near Eastern context and then use it as a demonstration of the superiority of modern pluralist assumptions, I think is at best misguided. And to read anachronistic modern meanings into an Ancient Near Eastern context is hardly enlightened. Instead of reading anachronistic prejudices into the text of the Bible, O’Donnell would have been well-served to read the Bible synergistically. One can no more read New World realities into Ancient Near Eastern legalities than read Torah legalities into New Covenant realities. He cannot comprehend the Bible as a whole without comprehending its individual passages. And He cannot comprehend its individual passages apart from, well, comprehending the Bible as a whole.

Lawrence O’Donnell’s bigotry has done a grave injustice to the majesty of the most significant book in the history of Western civilization. If indeed, O’Donnell had an adequate understanding of the rich tradition of biblical Judaism, he would not have been so cavalier in his diatribe against Old Testament Jewish jurisprudence. Because complex codes regarding the propriety of human relationships are hardly reducible to superficial sound bites like those emanating from his mouth.

That's just a taste of the two entries.

Does the Constitution Prohibit Voting According Religious Beliefs?

The answer should be obvious, but all throughout the push to neuter marriage, people have said things that either explicitly or implicity indicate that those with religious beliefs about sex and marriage that are incompatible with those of the Left are not allowed to vote according to thier beliefs. The same goes for abortion.

To give you an example, on March 9, 2009 the Orange County Register printed a short letter from a Carey Strombotne that asked "If church and state are separate, why then do religious people have the right to weigh in on the issue of Proposition 8?"

The  paper subsequently printed several responses at this URL. (Note that the OCR now has a paywall in place.)

It is a perversion of the American system to suggest that citizens should not be able to vote according to their conscience. If that includes notions that are also found in tradtional, organized religion, so be it. Non-religious arguments have been made for the California Marriage Amendment and similar laws. Non-religious arguments have been made supporting the state's interest in licensing marriage as something uniting the sexes.